Given that the mean wage was only $43,460 in 2009, in order to raise minimum wage to $60,000 per year, your pay cut would be to minimum wage. The government would have to confiscate all income, supplement it with printed money, then redistribute it evenly across the population. In that kind of scenario, why would anybody do anything but the absolute minimum? Isn't that largely why the Soviet Union wasn't competitive? If there was no economic incentive for hard work, I'd wager many of the presently most productive people would optimize for work minimization.
> Isn't that largely why the Soviet Union wasn't competitive?
The backwater pre-industrial, post-war torn nation that beat the US to space? No, I don't think that was why they couldn't compete.
As far as I recall, pay is a pretty poor motivator -- while low pay is a pretty strong "de-motivator". So if you give people interesting challenges and make sure they can meet their basic needs, people are likely to preform.
But, even if competing for exceptional wages was a great motivator, no-one is saying that you couldn't do that in such a system -- you might have to limit it to fewer "exceptional" people, and there might be a higher risk of being demoted -- but I can't see why it wouldn't be possible. I don't think it would be a good idea, however.
All that aside, a household income of 80.000 USD sounds pretty good for most of the US (never mind 120.000) ?
The backwater pre-industrial, post-war torn nation that beat the US to space? No, I don't think that was why they couldn't compete
Pretty amazing what you can do when you're willing to spend your country into insolvency and collapse.
So if you give people interesting challenges and make sure they can meet their basic needs, people are likely to preform.
It's not like 50% of workers in the USSR admitted to drinking on the job, or 40% held second jobs to make more money, right? I guess if you're not motivated by a strong aense of community and bullshit pay, the gulags and purges might help.
That's assuming a lot of things about the present level of productivity of everyone working. Also, your number sounds like "household income" and I'm making my assumptions based on GDP per capita[0].
Generally though, yes, I'd assume most people would end up working ~20 hours a week. I'd assume most employers would prefer this, and would also optimize the use of their employees' time.
I think your understanding of Soviet economic policy is probably a bit naive, but for a high level overview of my philosophy, I'd recommend Russell's In Praise of Idleness[1].
That's mean individual wage, not household. Per capita GDP isn't a good indicator here. I'd be careful about suggesting naïveté while advocating for a minimum wage higher than the mean wage.
The Soviet Union put humans in space. And you have to be able to compete at all before you can lose a multi-decade arms race between superpowers.
I am absolutely not advocating for a minimum wage higher than the median wage. There is no universal law that 40 hours a week is productive. Given an average 20 hour work week, there are still trillions of dollars available to those who want to work harder or smarter. There is still plenty of room for winners and losers.
The Soviet Union put humans in space. And you have to be able to compete at all before you can lose a multi-decade arms race between superpowers.
At what cost? How many Ukrainians did they starve to death in the process, how many "political opponents" were purged, how many people died in the gulags because they didn't tow the line?
Unfortunately, what you want has been tried, and it didn't work very well. What you'll end up with is many people not working at all because its not worth paying them, and a bunch of others forced to work at gunpoint to make up for the people that can't produce. It's pretty shitty to be in either group.
